Again, thought terminating cliche. why do you believe that to be the case? Have you read its constitution? Engaged in good faith with Conflicting defector accounts? Looked at past electoral data? Or Studied the country’s history to conclude why North Korean politics has taken the shape that it has?
Or, have you simply swallowed an orientalized view of a country on the other side of the world, without really questioning it?
Let’s address the elephant in the room here. You and I probably agree that the cult of personality around the Kim family in the DPRK is not conducive to a healthy political culture,and I would consider it a failure within the DPRK’s political project. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about that.
Why is there a cult of personality to begin with? If we look at charts of electoral results immediately preceding and following the Korean War, we see North Korea go from an incredibly vibrant, multi party, Socialist Republic, to a system where the Workers Party heavily dominates the legislative process. So this centralization in North Korean politics has a clear material origin.
But did you know that, in contrast to this centralization, the Kims have all held different positions in government? Did you know that those positions, on paper at least, get progressively more diffuse and less centralized as time has gone on?
Those facts alone don’t tell us everything about the DPRK’s politics. But it does lead us to consider why these two concurrent trends, the cult of personality and the diffusal of power, have are happening. Perhaps it points to factional divisions.
What I’m getting at is not that China, or the DPRK, or any other country on earth for that matter, is not some secret, perfect, democratic utopia. But that these places have political cultures and institutions that arise from history, and we can analyze them to see how and why they work (or sometimes don’t work). And that making sweeping generalizations based on aesthetic vibes isn’t helpful. We have to strive to actually understand the world if we want to meaningfully discuss it
Its not a sweeping generalization. Look i appreciate you actually putting some genuine well meaning into this reply. I really do. But calling something democratic, when it clearly isn’t doesn’t help anything except to push the narrative. I can call my fridge an oven , I can even show you were it gets hot. It doesn’t make my fridge an oven. With that being said, again, I appreciate this reply, but let’s be honest, this isn’t going anywhere. I wish you a good evening
You really should know how silly this makes you look, even to someone sharing your judgement of how democratic those processes are in NK or China. They’re just explaining how things work in the political systems of those countries objectively.
If you’re from the US - someone can explain to you how the electoral college works without making a judgement on whether or not that’s democratic or not. If you’re not from the US, many democratic systems have such mechanics like indirect appointments or indirect voting, whether good or bad.
Objective knowledge gives you the power to form better opinions and take action, including for those systems of power that you are a part of. Rejecting such knowledge unconditionally because it’s about a country you don’t like (or anything you don’t like) is incredibly self defeating in the long term. It makes you easy to manipulate.
You say that, but you also claimed out of nowhere that they said NK holds fair elections. Which they clearly didn’t. So if you aren’t misunderstanding what they’re trying to tell you - why are you putting words into their mouth and being combative?
But if you understood what they were trying to say as you said you did, you would understand they’re not claiming that is de facto what NK is. They’re just saying what NK is on paper. Even sham governments frequently live in the shadow of legitimacy cast by what their system does on paper and still follow protocol even if parameters are tightly controlled for a certain outcome. So a lot of this could have been avoided by not fighting that premise and reiterating your point differently. Such as with Xi, you did not mean to deny he wasn’t elected by the NPC instead of the people, but you wanted to deny the legitimacy of the entire process including the NPC. So say that instead of denying the former. “Even if he’s indirectly elected, the process as a whole is a sham.” or “You’re right, he is indirectly elected. But that doesn’t change my point, the legitimacy of that election is also a sham.”, and none of this would have been necessary.
What isn’t hard to grasp is that NK isn’t democratic, and sham elections dont count
Again, thought terminating cliche. why do you believe that to be the case? Have you read its constitution? Engaged in good faith with Conflicting defector accounts? Looked at past electoral data? Or Studied the country’s history to conclude why North Korean politics has taken the shape that it has?
Or, have you simply swallowed an orientalized view of a country on the other side of the world, without really questioning it?
Let’s address the elephant in the room here. You and I probably agree that the cult of personality around the Kim family in the DPRK is not conducive to a healthy political culture,and I would consider it a failure within the DPRK’s political project. I don’t think there’s anything controversial about that.
Why is there a cult of personality to begin with? If we look at charts of electoral results immediately preceding and following the Korean War, we see North Korea go from an incredibly vibrant, multi party, Socialist Republic, to a system where the Workers Party heavily dominates the legislative process. So this centralization in North Korean politics has a clear material origin.
But did you know that, in contrast to this centralization, the Kims have all held different positions in government? Did you know that those positions, on paper at least, get progressively more diffuse and less centralized as time has gone on?
Those facts alone don’t tell us everything about the DPRK’s politics. But it does lead us to consider why these two concurrent trends, the cult of personality and the diffusal of power, have are happening. Perhaps it points to factional divisions.
What I’m getting at is not that China, or the DPRK, or any other country on earth for that matter, is not some secret, perfect, democratic utopia. But that these places have political cultures and institutions that arise from history, and we can analyze them to see how and why they work (or sometimes don’t work). And that making sweeping generalizations based on aesthetic vibes isn’t helpful. We have to strive to actually understand the world if we want to meaningfully discuss it
Its not a sweeping generalization. Look i appreciate you actually putting some genuine well meaning into this reply. I really do. But calling something democratic, when it clearly isn’t doesn’t help anything except to push the narrative. I can call my fridge an oven , I can even show you were it gets hot. It doesn’t make my fridge an oven. With that being said, again, I appreciate this reply, but let’s be honest, this isn’t going anywhere. I wish you a good evening
You really should know how silly this makes you look, even to someone sharing your judgement of how democratic those processes are in NK or China. They’re just explaining how things work in the political systems of those countries objectively.
If you’re from the US - someone can explain to you how the electoral college works without making a judgement on whether or not that’s democratic or not. If you’re not from the US, many democratic systems have such mechanics like indirect appointments or indirect voting, whether good or bad.
Objective knowledge gives you the power to form better opinions and take action, including for those systems of power that you are a part of. Rejecting such knowledge unconditionally because it’s about a country you don’t like (or anything you don’t like) is incredibly self defeating in the long term. It makes you easy to manipulate.
Look i know how these countries operate. Saying they do “x” doesn’t mean it to be true. Its not hard to understand
You say that, but you also claimed out of nowhere that they said NK holds fair elections. Which they clearly didn’t. So if you aren’t misunderstanding what they’re trying to tell you - why are you putting words into their mouth and being combative?
It was that they are democratic. I’m not baiting them, this stupid thing has been going on for so long lol
But if you understood what they were trying to say as you said you did, you would understand they’re not claiming that is de facto what NK is. They’re just saying what NK is on paper. Even sham governments frequently live in the shadow of legitimacy cast by what their system does on paper and still follow protocol even if parameters are tightly controlled for a certain outcome. So a lot of this could have been avoided by not fighting that premise and reiterating your point differently. Such as with Xi, you did not mean to deny he wasn’t elected by the NPC instead of the people, but you wanted to deny the legitimacy of the entire process including the NPC. So say that instead of denying the former. “Even if he’s indirectly elected, the process as a whole is a sham.” or “You’re right, he is indirectly elected. But that doesn’t change my point, the legitimacy of that election is also a sham.”, and none of this would have been necessary.